Comments on: Lisa Murkowski’s Earmark in the House Land Use Bill

By: S.E. Robinson

S.E. Robinson — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:24:57 +0000

Don Young calls Redstate propganda, bulldip… http://www.redstate.com/serobinson/2012/06/20/wilderness-omnibus-earmarks-sealaska-corporation/

By: fbks

fbks — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:11:59 +0000

It was the manner in which he was removed that is very offensive. And I agree there are few conservatives here. What in fact is a lot of self described “independent” people who live off government benefits. The support for the 2nd amendment and the tendency to vote R in presidential elections causes outside people to think we are a conservative sate. In fact most R politicians here are indistinguishable from Ds.

By: alaskaescapeartist

alaskaescapeartist — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:11:42 +0000

his removal is only a disgrace to the bastardized judicial system and the prosecutors whom manipulated and solicited false testimony. The stories are out now at how corrupted (and false) the charges were.
From my first hand knowledge, the re-election of Murkowski (in addition to your analysis) was at least partially due because of a decades-old mentality in Alaska. When your entire congressional delegation can fit in a Metro, you start thinking in terms of “what is best for my home turf”, as opposed to any national movement, such as the Tea Party. Call it a self-preservation. It was comforting to have all that experience with Ted, Frank, and Don. Personally, I think their “power” was vastly overrated save a few bits of legislation here and there.
Many of my friends and family were terrified at the prospect of a newbie heading to the Senate for fear of not getting their due. It’s a similar mentality that causes a dislike for Palin among Alaska conservatives. I suppose it’s the “old guard” vs the “new blood”, but not for the obvious reasons.

By: fbks

fbks — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:21:14 +0000

in the Republican primary, by Republican voters. Her subsequent behavior was contrary to any ethical standard, and she prevailed in the general election through overwhelming support by Democrat voters.
The write in process in rural Alaska Villages has all the hallmarks of mass voter fraud, as the Native Corporations who backed her write in campaign. It was well known that Seaalaska, amongst other corporations, where backing her to further their own ends, regardless of the fact that their shareholders vote Democrat by huge majorities.
The comment I question above states that $1.99 million was not bad to keep Joe Miller out of the senate. The author apparently discounts the will of the majority of Republican grass roots voters in their collective will to replace Lisa. And in fact excuses the extra legal means of her re election. She could not run as a Republican, because the Republican nominee was Joe Miller. Apparently the established elite know what is better for the ignorant and unwashed electorate.
Control of the senate, by conservative Republican senators appears critical, in any scenario, moving forward. Re electing Lisa was a large step backward for those who desire to see a majority conservative led federal government. The fact that her re election was achieved in the manner it was (as was the removal of Ted Stevens a few years previously) remains a disgrace for our state of Alaska and the nation.

By: alaskaescapeartist

alaskaescapeartist — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:20:29 +0000

I lived in SE AK through the heydays of Stevens-Murkowski (Frank)-Young. I experienced how Alaska was used as a bargaining chip for national environmental votes and token conservationism of Democrats as the almighty AK congressional delegation sat impotent while the Clinton Administration unilaterally terminated Tongass Forest timber contracts.
I am no fan of Murkowski (Lisa) or Young, but any legislation that chips away at Federal ownership and control is worth serious consideration. I would side with Sealaska before The Sierra Club.
So far as earmarks. They are a good mechanism that gets abused. Eliminate the mechanism? Good luck on that. It will simply come back in another form with a new name. The best defense against the improprieties suggested by this post and article, are things like this post and article… an informed and vigilant electorate can deal with any ill legislation or legislators.
Before you condemn the messengers for this one (Murkowski and Young), consider the benefits of utilizing a plentiful resource towards an economic good.
As to the arguments raised in the article, it harkens back to the days of how members of many of the small towns mentioned were used and whose words were twisted to give the impression that they wanted the Feds to close down the region to logging. A large grain of salt should be applied.

By: Tbone

Tbone — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:07:40 +0000

At least becker finally wised up.

BTW, I bet I have been banned, or threatened, by more members of management than anyone, like ever. Can I help it if I am just to loveable to let go?

By: gekster

gekster — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:52:29 +0000

Art said he would support in the Alaska primary winner, and then totally went for Lisa after she got beat.

And T-bone suck up to management?

You go off your meds again.
That didn’t work out for you last time either, now did it.
(said with tongue in cheeck. )

By: aesthete

aesthete — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:45:55 +0000

I guess he wasn’t as good at sucking up to RedState management as you are.

By: mbecker908

mbecker908 — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:34:38 +0000

And frankly, $1.9MM isn’t a bad price to keep Joe Miller out of the Senate.

By: gekster

gekster — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:21:57 +0000

had sold his soul for rock-n-roll.

With that he could have kept his self respect,
but for some even that has a price.

(I still miss the Great War Buzzard from Mt. Alaska, though)

By: Tbone

Tbone — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:04:36 +0000

LOL.

By: Joliphant

Joliphant — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:03:19 +0000

Downtrodden native folk, Obvious payback from a politician to a company that sounds like it is twirling its mustache and laughing while the poor children are evicted from their homes.

If I read the blaze article correctly, its claiming that the people living on the island already are making use of the forest ? Doesn’t that give them standing to oppose this ? (Not a lawyer don’t play one on tv and didn’t sleep in a holiday inn)